ERIC PIERCE: The biotech
industry is now 52 months into its bull run on Wall Street, more than four
years, and is reaching levels not seen since the genomics bubble in 2000.
Biotechs have raised another $17 billion so far this year, but the real news is
that cash-starved venture companies have finally joined the party. Biotechs
have raised more than a billion and a half dollars in IPOs this year, making
2013 the best market for new issues in a decade. What's driving the interest in
IPOs? Some point to the JOBS Act, which Congress passed in 2012 to provide
private companies better access to Wall Street. Others say the red hot biotech
market has generated lots of profits for investors who are happy to redeploy
their cash in fresh opportunities. But market watchers know the party can't
last forever.

Later in the show, Piper
Jaffray technical analyst Craig Johnson will show us what his charts are saying
about biotech stocks in the second half. Now, I'm pleased to be joined by
Kenneth Moch, President and CEO of Chimerix, an anti-viral company that raised
more than $100 million dollars in its April IPO. We're also joined by investor
Eric Roberts of Balanced Life Sciences, and investment banker Jamie Streator of
Cowen and Company. Jamie, I'd like to start with you. You've been in the
banking industry for 30-plus years. How has the JOBS Act impacted how you go
about selling IPOs?

JAMIE STREATOR: It's been
actually pretty fundamental and it really comes down to marketing. In the prior
era we really had to take companies public by essentially introducing the
public in a very short time frame, which is defined by the rules. Under the
JOBS Act, we're now allowed to actually go visit with the investors, people
like Eric, and introduce them to the companies weeks or even months before that
process starts. And educating the consumer is a big part of how we've done it.
And Eric probably has a perspective on that as well.

ERIC PIERCE: Eric, what's
your take?

ERIC ROBERTS: Biotechnology
is obviously a very complicated space. It's probably the most complicated of
any investment. If you're looking at investing in a company, especially a new
company like in an IPO, you need time to make a decision. The JOBS Act allows
investors to get a running start. There's meetings called Test the Waters
meetings where investors can look at a company well before the official road
show, where they can take meetings two months maybe before an IPO pricing, and
spend the next two months doing work, talking to their experts and preparing
for the actual pricing date. And then they become sophisticated investors who
want to own a stock for the long haul, not making a quick decision because a
deal's pricing in a week and they have to buy it quickly.

ERIC PIERCE: So it's really
introduced a fundamental change on how companies can get marketed to investors.
Because prior to that there was a quiet period where you basically filed for an
IPO, you sort of fell into this quiet period where you really couldn't say a
whole lot or have discussions with investors. Ken, talk about your experience,
your April IPO and how many Test the Waters meetings did you do, and how did
they help?

KENNETH MOCH: Well, we did
literally dozens of Testing the Waters meetings. I'd add one thing to what both
Jamie and Eric said, and that is it's not only the potential to educate
investors, it's actually learning if there's an interest in the company. So
when we started thinking about our IPO a year or so ago, the Testing the Waters
meetings allowed us to see that there was, indeed, investor interest in
Chimerix, which would then allow us to convince the bankers that this was a
good thing to do. The market really wasn't there yet. And so that helped us to
make the decision to invest in an IPO pathway, which is costly, and then made
us comfortable that we had the potential to complete the IPO.

JAMIE STREATOR: And Congress,
I think, should take credit here. Because at the end of the day, the old rules,
really under the gun jumping sort of concept, you were precluded from actively
approaching investors without a prospectus in place and without the clear
regulatory path with the SEC. This has enabled us to really effectively
position these companies and frankly have a two-way conversation with the buy
side, which wasn't possible before. Where we can talk about combinations of
pricing, the quality of the science, the quality of the management, timing
wise, are they ready for the public markets yet or are they too early? And I
think that's going to, I think, fundamentally change the way we both approach
investors going forward and continue to do that, but also allow us, I think, to
better gauge when to actually take companies public. And that will make it a
much more, I think, constructive process for the companies, as Ken said, from a
timing point of view.

ERIC PIERCE: So it's really
facilitated a dialogue or a conversation, if you will.

KENNETH MOCH: Absolutely. And
the quiet period, Jamie referred to this. The quiet period made no sense for
technical companies like ours. You need the time to understand what the story
is, to see if it's really of interest. And you can't make a decision on have a
meeting Tuesday, invest on Wednesday. It does not work.

ERIC ROBERTS: I think we were
all testing the waters over the last year to see if this would work. And I
think we all had some skepticism, but I think all the studies that have been
done in recent months about the JOBS Act and its impact have said the Test the
Waters meetings were a key part of the success of that act.

ERIC PIERCE: What's
interesting, Jamie brought it up earlier, is the cost side. And if you go back
to Sarbanes-Oxley, when that was enacted, effectively
that raised the bar for companies to the regulations around which and costs
around which to go public. And so now with the JOBS Act sort of a year or two
under its belt, is the sheen kind of coming back on being a public company?
Because for a long time companies said well, we're going to remain private as
long as we can.

KENNETH MOCH: I'd say it differently.
It's not as difficult to get public if the markets are interested in you being
public. It's two sides of the equation. But the JOBS Act, clearly with the
removal of the 404(b) auditor attestation before the IPO, getting ready for
that was a significant change bcause that was basically a wealth transfer from
research and development to accounting to get ready for something that might
not happen. And so from an investor perspective, our investors or investors in
any venture capital-backed company would look at that investment prior to going
public and say does it make sense to take that risk?

ERIC PIERCE: We've got about
a minute left, so we just want to get Eric and Jamie's feedback. In terms of
the meetings that you're seeing, how helpful is that for you and your team in
terms of identifying and understanding whether this company is an investable
name?

ERIC ROBERTS: Oh, incredibly
helpful. We don't make decisions on a company unless we've spent weeks, if not
months making decisions. And under the new environment, the new rules, we have
that time.

JAMIE STREATOR: I think for
the first time we actually are partners with the investors. I think the old
system was almost confrontational, because you're sort of asking them to make a
decision on imperfect information. Now it's back and forth and if there's a gap
in the information we help fill that gap. And I think that in any marketplace
the more transparent it is and the more flow of information is allowed between
intermediaries on both sides of the equation, you're going to have a more
efficient market structure. And I think that's really what's emerging.

ERIC PIERCE: That's great.
Excellent. Well, $9 billion has poured into healthcare investment funds in the
first half of this year, but May and June were a much different story. Here are
the numbers. We'll be right back to analyze what they mean.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

NARRATOR: You're watching
BioCentury This Week.

SEGMENT 2

ERIC PIERCE: What's needed to
maintain the market's momentum? To find out what could help or hurt we're talking
with Ken Mock, Eric Roberts and Jamie Streator. Eric, we ended the last segment
with a picture of healthcare fund flows clearly tapering off after a strong
start to the year. How much of a concern is that for you?

ERIC ROBERTS: It's not a big
concern. I think the biotech industry is a much more mature industry than it
used to be when we all used to worry about fund flows in the '90s and the 2000's
when biotech was a very immature industry. There are over 900 products in Phase
III trials in the biotech industry today. It's an industry that stands on its
merits. It's producing drugs, getting more drugs approved and is evaluated
based on its fundamentals. It's a profitable industry in aggregate, and I think
investors don't flock to the industry based on hype and run from it based on
fear. And investors have made money in the last year. It's been the number one
performing sector in the S&P 500 in the last year. So investors see the
maturity of the biotech industry and the value creation from these drugs in
late-stage trials.

ERIC PIERCE: So maturation of
the industry is helping out. Performance is helping out. Jamie, how are we
doing?

JAMIE STREATOR: Performance
is effectively chumming the water. So performance is drawing in the investors
who weren't sufficiently allocated to healthcare before. Because the way the
investor community is paid is on a relative basis. If you do better than your
peers, you get compensated for it. And when healthcare is doing better, the
generalists, as we call them, begin to gravitate into health care. And that's
part of what's been driving the deal cycle recently for IPOs.

ERIC PIERCE: And how much
under-invested were people coming into this latest cycle?

JAMIE STREATOR: That I
wouldn't know off the top of my head. Substantially.

ERIC ROBERTS: As Jamie said,
the generalists were not in healthcare. In fact, there was a taboo to be in
healthcare and life sciences in most of the last decade since the bursting of
the genomics bubble. And those folks have certainly come back, right? You've
seen it in your deals.

JAMIE STREATOR: Yeah, so I
think the combination of being under-invested plus the absolute performance of
the deals has been quite positive. And again, that's another way of kind of
gauging your metric relative to your peers. Because the performance of the
deals has increased people's relative performance if they were invested in
those deals, not just in the sector, and so the generalists have said we have
to now play in these IPOs. And so most of the successful IPOs that have
occurred have had a much, much larger component of what we would call
generalist investors. So it's not just the Fidelity Select Biotech fund, but
it's also three or four other pools of capital at Fidelity that are now also
investing in the IPOs.

ERIC PIERCE: Ken, what was
your experience with the IPO? I know you work with Jamie on that and you guys
are one of the more successful aftermarket performing IPOs. What was your
experience? Were you seeing new names that you typically -- how did you guys
sort of build that syndicate?

KENNETH MOCH: We did see some
new names. We saw a lot of people who had been on the sidelines, but were the
old names just waiting for a time, and I think that that went very well. Our
process happened to be a very good process that I think the bankers played a
role, Testing the Waters played a role, the support of the general community
played a role. And, of course, having a good story is the key thing. I think we
lose sight sometimes of the fact that our goal is to save lives and to develop
new medicines that do that. I think that that story resonates and the ability
to have good performing companies with a clear pathway for development of their
compounds is really important.

ERIC PIERCE: Certainly it's
easy to look past that social aspect.

KENNETH MOCH: Right, it's a
huge component.

ERIC PIERCE: And the other
thing you mentioned to your investors that resonated was the IPO was not the
final funding moment for Chimerix. What did you tell your investors?

KENNETH MOCH: It was a mile
post not a destination. I mean, our destination is the approval of our drug,
the funding of the Phase III trial we guarantee is the -- if guarantee is the
right word -- is going to be the focus of our efforts, and the money has to be
sufficient to complete our Phase III trial. That's what people are looking for.
You described it as not taking the funding risk. So we need to make sure that
the investors don't take that funding risk.

ERIC PIERCE: Are you in a
position where you're starting to put more capital into companies so you kind
of mitigate that funding risk for the portfolio companies?

ERIC ROBERTS: Yeah, I think
the more capital, the better the companies do.

KENNETH MOCH: Market has
always rewarded war chests, is a way of looking at it. If you have the capital
to get to your next milestone, be it a Phase III trial or some important thing,
the market is very comfortable with that. If you have to stop in the middle,
they're uncomfortable.

ERIC PIERCE: Let's talk a
little bit about the M&A market, because that's another exit opportunity
for companies, aside from an IPO. And usually in biotech you either have one or
the other. A decent M&A market and a lukewarm IPO market. It seems like
this time around we've got sort of the porridge is the right temperature, if
you will. Ken, talk a little bit about whether the dual tracking strategy and
whether or not that was an opportunity that you guys explored as well.

KENNETH MOCH: I think as a
matter of value creation, you have to look at dual tracking. But I think in
this particular case, with the markets being able to take your product further
by its nature allows you to have greater returns. So for us, when it was clear
the IPO market was an approach, that was the best way to go. We can take the
drug further, we'll take it through Phase III, we'll get the results. We hope
the results are good in terms of saving lives with CMX001 and that will result
in greater value creation for our investors.

ERIC PIERCE: Speaking of
value creation, Eric, you have an interesting perspective in terms of the
pricing tension that's showing up now that the two markets are fairly hot. Talk
a little bit about that.

ERIC ROBERTS: Yeah, I think
in recent years there wasn't a very strong IPO market for biotech companies and
that meant that the pharmaceutical companies that were having a tough time with
their R&D productivity -- and we all know about this famous patent cliff in
the pharmaceutical companies where a lot of products were going off patent --
were able to kind of have their way with a lot of the private venture capital-backed
biotech companies. And that reduced the returns for the venture industry, which
was sort of the mainstay of starting a lot of these novel companies and kind of
the innovative companies, and reduced the returns for those investors and they
were starting less companies.

Now with an attractive and
thriving biotech IPO market in the last year, it creates a much better option
for these private companies as an alternative to M&A. And you're seeing
better valuations across the board in IPOs and M&A, which is a good thing
for the industry.

ERIC PIERCE: A lot of the
things -- the argument around some of the IPOs that we saw before the market
warmed up were that they were club deals. Jamie, I'd love you to talk about
this, where you basically had a group of investors that said this company
doesn't have many options, so lets --

JAMIE STREATOR: We
euphemistically called it the $7 club, because everybody went public at $7,
which is not necessarily a reflection of the company's values, but a reflection
of the stock splits and ultimately where the thing was priced. But I think that
there was no doubt about it that they were, in effect, public private
placements. And it was a group of anywhere from a dozen to 18 or so investors
who did them over and over again and effectively set price.

ERIC PIERCE: Well, the hot
biotech market can't last forever. So when we come back, we'll ask if the
industry has raised enough money in this window. For prospective, here's how
much biotech has outperformed the market this year.

SEGMENT 3

NARRATOR: Now back to
BioCentury This Week.

ERIC PIERCE: We're talking
with Ken Moch, Eric Roberts and Jamie Streator about market predictions for the
rest of 2013. We started the show with the JOBS Act, and where do you think
Congress should be playing in terms of how they can enable better, freer flow
of capital?

KENNETH MOCH: Well, I had the
opportunity to talk before a Congressional committee about this specific point,
and they're looking at a bipartisan nature of what could be done to increase
the implementation of the JOBS Act. There are certain aspects of it that are
still unclear. They're looking at ways that we can make sure there's further
liquidity for small companies, making sure that the IPO process is something
that's just more clarified. For example, in Testing the Waters meetings,
there's a huge debate that I could see between various lawyers and various
bankers, about how much you can do in talking to companies and investors before
the IPO and leading up to it. So that's a good question.

JAMIE STREATOR: I would
actually say that there is a fairly stiff interpretation certain firms have
taken to the number of meetings you can actually do. It actually hasn't been
promulgated by Congress yet, and I actually think a very, very high ceiling
should be applied to that and basically open the gates. Do as many as you want.

ERIC PIERCE: So there's a
gray area where --

JAMIE STREATOR: It's open to
interpretation.

ERIC PIERCE: It's not clear
how many meetings you can have.

KENNETH MOCH: And the theme
was getting the SEC to clarify the rules and regulations, or at least provide a
greater set of structures. Because right now it's open to significant
interpretation and some people are very conservative, some are less
conservative. There's issues of making sure everything's implemented fully.

ERIC PIERCE: Eric, we talked
earlier about performance and obviously that's something that can keep the
market going in addition to some of the regulatory means that are put into
work. What are some events on your calendar that you're keeping an eye on?

ERIC ROBERTS: I think
certainly M&A activities are a big part of it. This recent hostile bid by
Amgen for Onyx, I think it's the seventh hostile bid we've seen in the last
three years by pharma and big biotech companies for smaller biotech companies.
That shows that the thirst for pipeline products within the large
pharmaceutical and biotech community from small biotech. That drives stocks, it
drives investments, it drives new capital into the sector. And I think that's
keeping the excitement going. And then there are the deals, the IPOs that have
made people so much money in the last year, which I think Jamie can talk about
a little bit.

JAMIE STREATOR: Yeah, so
IPOs, as a class, are up well over 50%. That's been unprecedented over the last
15 years or more. And I think that speaks to the quality of the companies, I
think to the depth and I think breadth of the investor community that's
actually participated in those deals. And I think what's actually very
interesting to us as bankers is the pipeline of companies that we see coming is
as good or better than the companies that have already gone public. This is a
very mature group of companies. And I think that will by dint of the quality
and maturity of the science in those companies help sustain the quality of the
deal flow and the performance.

ERIC PIERCE: We've got about
30 seconds. What's making the quality higher? This time around opposed to the
last window?

JAMIE STREATOR: Well, I think
actually the market's discriminating, so some deals are not getting done. And that's
important to keep in mind. Some companies have not been ascribed the same
values as others. Candidly, I think some of us who have been through these
cycles before are being a little more judicious about what we're willing to
take on, and I think that speaks to the fact that we're being disciplined about
the companies we're taking to the market. And I think the market should act as
a natural barrier there in keeping up the quality bar, and that's very
important. I think lowering the quality bar will not be a positive element for
equating.

ERIC PIERCE: Excellent.
Great. Well, thanks to our panel. So what do the charts say about the biotech
market in the second half? Piper Jaffray's Craig Johnson will give us his
perspective. But first, here's a look at how Piper's Big Cap Index has
performed.

ERIC PIERCE: Well, I want to
start with a bigger picture. We talked earlier in the show about how biotech
was outperforming. Let's take a look at what your analysis is on the S&P
500.

CRAIG JOHNSON: Sure. So the
S&P 500 is up a little over 14% this year. It's been quite an amazing ride
so far this year. A lot of investors are still not very confident that this
market can continue in here. But from the bigger term pictures and what we're
seeing, we think it continue to rise into year end.

And what we're seeing on the
charts right now is we had a little bit of a pullback that started in the May
time frame, tail end of May. And it's just been a pullback and a retest of
support. We think this has just been a healthy pullback, Eric, and we still
remain positive and been recommended investors to continue to be adding to
positions in here.

ERIC PIERCE: Now what's your
target on the S&P? Do you have a long term target?

CRAIG JOHNSON: Sure. We laid
out three price objectives on the S&P, August of last year. We laid out
1550 in six months, and we laid out 1700 in twelve months. So we're only a few
weeks away from hitting that second mile marker that we've been looking for,
which is 1700. And then ultimately next year, we're looking for 2000 on the
S&P 500.

ERIC PIERCE: OK. Great. Let's
jump into the biotechs. We're going to tee up here your Piper Big Cap Index.
Now how big are the companies in this index?

CRAIG JOHNSON: Basically,
every company in here is going to be large cap. We'll define that kind of --

ERIC PIERCE: $10 billion-plus
market cap?

CRAIG JOHNSON: $10
billion-plus market caps.

ERIC PIERCE: What do you see
here?

CRAIG JOHNSON: So what we're
seeing here with this chart is, this is a group that had been consolidating,
really since about 2000. And just recently, I'd say recently in the last 12 to
18 months, this group broke top side of that consolidation range, making
all-time new highs.

And we've been seeing good,
strong relative strength, and also good price momentum at the very bottom of
that chart. So this kind of price action has really been drawing in investors
looking to be investing in the biotech space.

And this chart has gotten to
be very steep. It's almost gone what we define as parabolic, in the technical
world, meaning going straight up. We think that biotechs, specifically the
large caps, are probably due for a bit of a pullback and a retest of support
where we broke out from.

ERIC PIERCE: So've been good
performers of late, maybe a little bit of retrenchment coming up. Let's take a
look at what your mid cap chart shows.

CRAIG JOHNSON: Yeah, Eric.
This one's a bit more optimistic. We reverse the price down trend that had been
in play for this particular group for about the last five to six years. We're
seeing good relative performance. It doesn't look extended the way the large
caps do.

And perhaps what we're seeing
with this is that there's some consolidation premium being put into these mid
cap stocks. And we're not seeing quite the steep valuations for these names,
and we're not seeing any sort of relative strength weakness and roll over quite
yet in the mid cap space.

ERIC PIERCE: So between the
big cap and the mid cap, the mid cap chart's looking a little bit more
promising for potential upside, just based on the trends.

CRAIG JOHNSON: Absolutely.
Definitely. Mid cap looks more attractive right now. And again, the large caps
look like they're due for a little bit of profit taking, backing and filling,
as we would call it.

CRAIG JOHNSON: Well, no
question. Amgen's been on an absolute tear, and it has been, really since the
fall of 2011. They've been making a nice series of higher highs and higher lows
here on the chart. You can see the blue line there. That's the rising 40-week
moving average on a weekly chart. And we've pulled back and retested that a
couple times. And really since the end of May, we've been consolidating and
pulling back. And we're right now in the process of retesting that up-trend
support line and also that rising 40-week moving average.

I'm watching to see if that
level holds. If that level doesn't hold, I think you're going to start to see
some meaningful profit taking coming in on Amgen. But if it does hold, if we
start turning back up, I think you'll see some good flows into the name. So we
need to be watching this level very carefully, that 40-week moving average.

ERIC PIERCE: Excellent. I
think we have time for one more. Let's dial up Biogen Idec here. What's this
chart showing you, Craig?

CRAIG JOHNSON: So again,
another great winner. Nice series of higher highs or higher lows on the charts.
But you can see over the last year or so, we've gotten a little bit extended.
The slope of the Biogen charts really started to steepen, and we're now
consolidating.

So from our perspective, if
we are going to pull back, you're going to find really good support, which you
are starting to see at that rising 40-week moving average. And we're starting
to see a bit of this down trend reversal since the May time frame. If we can
come back and break top side of those highs, I think people are going to be
excited. But right now, we're clearly in a profit-taking mode in some of these
names, even though they're still in up trends, Eric.

ERIC PIERCE: Excellent. Well,
that's all the time we have. You can see more of Craig Johnson's analysis in
our web exclusive interview. It's at BioCenturyTV.com.

Thanks to Ken Mock, Eric
Roberts and Jamie Streeter. And remember to share your thoughts about today's
show on Twitter. Join the conversation by using hash tag #BioCenturyTV.

For Steve Usdin, I'm Eric
Pierce. Thanks for watching.

SEGMENT 5

NARRATOR: Now, a BioCentury
This Week Web Exclusive.

ERIC PIERCE: I'm joined again
by Craig Johnson from Piper Jaffray. Let's take a look at the bigger picture --
the fund flows. And tell me what you're seeing from those overall perspective.

CRAIG JOHNSON: Sure, from a
10,00-foot perspective, what we're seeing right now is we're finally starting
to see inflows back into equity funds. We have not seen meaningful inflows into
equity funds in multiple years. And in 2013, we finally started to see inflows
back into equity funds.

On the flip side though,
interest rates. Interest rates have risen quite steeply over the last eight
weeks or so. And we're starting to see some meaningful outflows coming out of
fixed income funds. And specifically, to biotech -- the strong performance
we've seen in biotech over the last couple years has really had positive
inflows into those funds. And you can see those from the charts, very strong
inflows.

The question is going to be,
going forward from here, can those fund flows continue? Well, given the
weakening relative performance that we're seeing on our large cap index, I
suspect that those fund flows are probably going to ease, Eric.

ERIC PIERCE: And so, what's
interesting is a lot of these smaller cap companies in biotech can be
influenced by relatively small pockets of capital. And when we see a shift
from, say, money coming out of a large cap portfolio and moving down the line,
sometimes the price moves can be pretty dramatic.

CRAIG JOHNSON: Absolutely,
and there certainly could be very strong underpinning for all those mid-cap
stocks, just a little bit of money and profit-taking coming out of the some of
the large cap names could certainly underpin a lot of those mid cap names.

ERIC PIERCE: Well, let's take
a look at some of the mid and smaller cap names. The next chart we're going to
dial up here is ViroPharma, infectious disease company. What's this chart
showing you?

CRAIG JOHNSON: So, Eric, this
is a very constructive looking chart. You can see the big base-looking price
action here on the chart. And we're above a rising 200-day moving average and
also a 50-day moving average.

From a technical perspective,
I like these kind of big bases. It tells me the shares are under an
accumulation and any sort of move post the highs we've seen over the last 12
months are going to be a real positive top-side breakup for the shares. So, on
weakness, bottom line, we would be buying the shares.

ERIC PIERCE: OK. Let's take a
look at the next company we got dialed up. Cempra, which is an infectious
disease company as well. What is this chart showing you, Craig?

CRAIG JOHNSON: So Cempra
recently broke out of a consolidation range it had been in for the better part
of about nine months. We moved above the 200-day moving average and the 50-day
moving average. And now we're starting, just in the past month or so,
consolidate sideways.

But notice the volume there
at the bottom of the chart. It's picking up as the shares are consolidating, suggesting
that there's perhaps a lot of buy-side interest there in this particular name.
So this is, again, a name I would be buying in positions and at these levels.

ERIC PIERCE: So incorporating
the volume activity into the price movement as well, is key.

CRAIG JOHNSON: Absolutely.

ERIC PIERCE: Yeah. Yeah. OK,
let's take a look at our last chart which is kind of a mid-cap play, NPS
Pharma, about a $1.5 billion company.

CRAIG JOHNSON: Yeah, here's a
stock that had been consolidating sideways. You'd been forming what we define
as a bit of an ascending triangle. You can see the higher lows having gotten
put into the shares. You had a pretty flat top on the shares for over the last
about 18 to 24 months. And then we finally broke top side of that.

Typically, when stocks break
top side of those consolidation ranges, you tend to see the price action
accelerate. And that's exactly what you've seen with NPS Pharma. I wouldn't be
surprised now given the size of that pattern and the move we've just had, to
see some consolidation and profit-taking come into play and pulling back to
where the shares broke out from. So we'd be buying these shares on weakness
from our perspective.